dagblog - Comments for "Metamodern Journalism - much to disagree, but... but..."

We didn't need Seth to tell

Obey — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 15:56:04 +0000

In reply to It started out as an "In the

We didn't need Seth to tell us that. Your version is so much more digestible. Style-wise I mean. To the extent I agree with you, it seems like just a part of the broader phenomenon of the failure of the elites. The failures tied to the Iraq war and the financial crisis, along with all the smaller failures of habit in and around, tell us what? That the elites are stupid and venal with the solid moral core of a helium balloon. The press played their role in cheerleading for the war and for the housing bubble (all those brave entrepreneurial house-flipper profiles) and did little to no introspection in the aftermath of either. And it's NOW that you're upset they aren't having a full audit of how they handled Hillary's emails? I'm much more terrified about the failures of the FBI - Comey but also the ridiculously rabid email investigation, and by contrast their suspiciously tight-lipped omerta about Trump's Russia connections. What the hell has happened there? I think the press did a mediocre job, but so many other institutions, formal and informal, of society have just crumbled in their moment of truth. The suboptimal performance of network or cable tv is the last of our problems, honestly.

It started out as an "In the

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 14:33:00 +0000

In reply to That Abramson piece was an

It started out as an "In the News" piece, but I wrote too much, then forgot to include the link.

"Like it"? It had a couple very useful ideas, which is better than liking it. And yeah, philosophical stuff always sounds boring & pretentious, even if it's simple like Jonathan Livingston Seagull. "Excrutiating" is probably an apt adjective.

He's probably a good example of someone who benefits from Twitter's format. And while I think he misses it that Bernie's just another meta-narrative, or that half of his adulation could use a 1-year post-mortem to see what's right & (much) what's wrong with it, I do think he's identifying something we have to come to grips with in how people persuade and are persuaded, and I'm struck with the idea that *nobody has to commit or lose anything anymore*. Like all those people who prophesied great things from the Iraq invasion, yet they not only have their jobs still - they're the "adults in the room". And all media is like that - they can be 180 degrees wrong, and then it's "but it was all so unknowable", or they can be the stuck clock right twice a day, for which they take 17 or more victory laps, or they can simply parrot what every single other news site is parroting, and the safety-in-numbers approach will bolster their bottom line - they're either right with everyone or wrong with everyone, but no one ventures outside the fence alone.

And the news system can't sustain its same model from the days of OJ & the earlier Iranian hostage situation that turned us into 24x7 news junkies. They've gamed the system, put out meaningless pap within minutes of any live breaking event, off the AP feed if nothing else, and forget investigative journalism - people will settle for vapid opinion, and that opinion doesn't have to be researched, and it'll be forgotten much like yesterday's breakfast. We're all Tom Friedman now with that automated Thomas Friedman article generator, whether primitive [here] or more elaborate [here]. You can easily do the same with Nicholas Kristof. The press has been churning out fake news for years, and now they're distraught because these Russian punks or Macedonians or whoever are working their side of the street - for 1/20th the salary. Egads!

That Abramson piece was an

Obey — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 11:53:20 +0000

In reply to Metamodern Journalism - much to disagree, but... but...

That Abramson piece was an excrutiating read. Now I understand why you, in your merciful kindness or forgetfulness, didn't provide a link. Or did you like it?

It feels like when my nephews sit me down to show me a youtube video of some kid playing a video game; I'm sure there is a form of this activity that makes sense and is objectively enjoyable, but this ain't it. I love DFW's writing but this theorizing of what he is up to doesn't hit any of the right spots for me. Apart from the jargon-laden prose, I don't see what Seth is up to other than flipping the available set of facts around until we start to see a rabbit-duck rather than a duck-rabbit. That's a lot of theoretical weight for a pretty mundane activity to bear.